The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-08-11
NOTES FROM The FOURTH JUDICIAL CIR.
CUT COURT, KAUAI.

Associate Justice McCully, of the
Supreme Court, and Justice Hardy,
of the Fourth Judicial Circuit.
Yorimoto, guardian for Kats (w)
VS.. Inukai (k), petition for annul-
ment of marriage contract. A de-
murrer to petition was sustained.
p. Neumann for petition; w. o.
Smith for demurrer.
The petitioner prayed for an
annulment of the marriage, upon
the ground that fraud had been
practised upon the woman in the
case, a girl of the age of fif-
teen years, by the husband, in
representing to her that her parents
had given consent to the marriage,
when in fact they had not, and that
by such alleged consent she had
been induced to marry.
Mr.. Neumann, counsel for petit
toner, stated in argument that he
did not base the plaintiff S case upon
the absence of consent by the par
ents, but upon the fraud in the
statement that such consent had
been given. The provision in our
laws relating to consent is found in
Section 1921 of the Civil Code,
which provides that in case of the
marriage of a minor, the consent of
the parent, guardian or other person
having the minor in charge, shall be
obtained, if within the Kingdom.
A demurrer was filed to the petition
as stating no legal ground for the
annulment of marriage. The
Court, IN consideration of the case,
said that the ground maintained by
plaintiff in his argument must be
considered as based upon this Sec
ton. If there were no reference in
the code to the consent of parents,
it cannot be supposed that a pre-
tense of having obtained such con-
sent was a ground of fraud upon
which an annulment might be asked.
Marriages divorce and annulment
of marriage are, in this Kingdom,
entirely governed by statute; the
question referred to has no penalty
for the non-performance of its con-
ditions. The law specifying the
requirements of a valid marriage
does not specify obtaining the con-
sent of parents, etc., in the case of
minors. The law providing for an
nulment of marriage does not pro-
vide for this as ground of annul-
ment. The section referred to must
be considered as merely directory /;
the compliance or noncompliance
with it is not an essential to valid
marriage. The strongest cases
cited for the plaintiff do not 60 to
the extent of annulment of marriage
for fraud in a non-essential mat
ter, and where the marriage has
been followed by cohabitation. The
Court is bound by the terms of our
statute, and sustains the demurrer,
and dismisses the petition.
Will Opunui VS.. Benito Guerr-
erro. Claim of 5000 damages. APP
peal by defendant from Police JUS
tice, Lihue. Jury waived Verdict
for defendant. j. M. Poepoe for
plaintiff; Peterson and Smith for
defendant.
This was an action to recover
damages for alleged unnecessary
severity and brutal treatment in
making an arrest. The defendant
is police officer, who arrested the
plaintiff for drunkenness in the pub
lie street. The plaintiff brought
evidence TO show that the defend
ant had repeatedly struck him and
incapacitating him for work for two
months thereafter. The testimony
for the defendant was to the effect
that the defendant had proceeded
very carefully and prudently in
making the arrest, using great pa
thence and demonstrating with the
plaintiff, but that the plaintiff, who,
by all the evidence, was drunk at
the time, but not to the extent of
rendering him incapable of refec-
ton, assaulted the police officer,
and attempted to drag him from his
horse; that the officer, after dis
mounting and calling for help from
the natives, which they refused to
give, and being at a disadvantage
and in danger from the plaintiffs
attack, struck him single blow
with his fist, which knocked him
down, where he lay and refused tt
be picked up by the officer. In the
conflict of testimony, the Court had
good reason to believe that for thu
defendant, reversing the judgment
! of the Police Court below, which
had given the plaintiff 5000 dam
ages. The Court said that if it ha.
appeared that an officer arresting al
intoxicated person had used I'm
necessary violence, as by striking o
kicking the man after.he was down
it would have awarded him dam
ages. AS it was, the Court CAV
him nothing.